The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-11-30

declared by the highest judicial tri-
bunal, as expounded by the highest law
officers of the executive, that with
J drawal once made by competent
authority was legal and effective to ex-
clude all from intrusion within its
! limits. One such case where hardships
we're about to be inflicted, under the
| law, came under your observation.
| Guilford Miller settled upon lanes
afterwards selected and claimed by the
! Northern Pacific Railroad Company, to
be within the withdrawal for Indemnity
purposes. Some doubt arising as to
the legality of the withdrawal. the
case was referred by this Depart
ment to the Attorney General
4 for his opinion. That officer held that
| ing its existence Miller could acquire no
cultivated and by which he lived.
Whilst recognizing the correctness of
the law, you saw the injustice of The
case, so far as the individual settler was
affected, and hundreds of others were
similarly treated, who might and would
be affected, and you directed that such
grants should be so administered by this
department, if possible, to protect
these settlers from such injustice,
stating your belief, that this can be
done under the provision which
declares that these selections shall be
made under the direction of the Secre-
tary of the Interior After years of
waiting, Congress has failed to empower
the department tosmake the necessary
surveys, whereby some grants mlgnt
be adjusted, and no immediate pros
pect of such survey was in sight, but
law passed was in MaIcl 1887 where the
Secretary,of the Interior Was directed
to Immediately adjust each of the rail-
road land grants made by Congress to
aid in the construction Of railroads
With an earnest desire to Obey
the mandate of Congress, to give
to corporations their every right I'M
der the laws, and at the same time
follow the directions given by you, TO
see that ample protection should be ex
tended to settlers and those seeking to
make settlement on public lands, l en-
tered upon a most caret III consideration
OF the whole subject of the history and
the law relating to land grants, and con-
cluded that If the department was
clothed with authority to make with
draWals, as has been IN so many
instances the exercise OF that authority,
it was a matter entirely within sound
discretion and not matter OF legal
discussion in any respect. That same
sound discretion which the interest of
the companies justified, said the W Ia
draWalS now demanded, peremptorl!y,
in the public interest a speedy reVoca-
ton IF the same and that the most eff
fective way of expediting an adjust
ment of the land grants and doing exact
justice to the companies and guarding
and promoting the interests OF settlers
also, was to permit the public 10 enter
into competition with the companies in
the selection of lands hereto ore with
drawn for indemnity purposes.
Accordingly, on May Is 1897, with
your approval, rules were laid upol the
companies for whose benefit The with
draWaIs had been made to show cause,
by d certain day, why the Withdrawals
should not be revoked. Some of these
companies failed to show cause. Others
filed answers, asserting to the TeVOca-
ton as they had received satisfaction
of the erant. Others consented, on
condition that the lands covered by the
select ons already made should be ex-
emit from the order OF revocation. and
other companies objected TO the order OF
revocation as illegal and in violation of
chartered rights. Briefs were filed
and oral arguments accorded to the
counsel of such companies as desired
to be heard. All of which were
fully and carefully considered, as was
due to the Importance of the questions
and the magnitude of the interests in
voIved.
ION August II, 1877, my views we're
fully expressed in decision rendered
in the case of the Atlantic q Pacific
Railway Company. which by answer
and argument raised nearly all the OBJ
jeCtions that were presented, in part
only, by number of other companies.
ing the lands within the indemnity
limits, and reserVing the same from
settlement, were revoked and the land
restored to the pat lie domain and
settlement, first in the cases
of the two companies which
had not answered. second in those
which answered and assentsd; third, in
the case OF the companies which set up
defense coming within the rulings in
the foregoing opinion. In the Con-
gressional grants to the following rail
road companies: Hastings & Dakota;
st. Paul q Northern Pacific; st. Paul,
Minneapolis IL Manitoba; st. Paul IL
Sioux City; Sioux City and st. Paul q
ST. Peter, it is provided that upon the
filing of maps designating the routes
and branches, it shall be the duty of
the Secretary of the Interior
to Withdraw from market the
lands embraced within the pro-
visions of the act making the grant.
In consequence of this provision, these
roads were omitted from the orders of
restoration. 1t will be seen from the
order passed IN the Atlantic and Pacific
case and which was applied to the other
companies, mutatis mutdndis, that
whilst it was determined that the lands
in question should no longer De with
held from appropriation under the
settlement laws, every precaution was
taken to protect the legal right Of the
Following this action,
instructions were subsequently issued
to the Commissioner of the General
Land Office, to detail all the available
force in his Office to the work
of adjusting the road grants and
proceeding as rapidly as possible
with the same. The amount of
land restored to the public domain
through the orders revoking the indem-
nifty Withdrawals, is stated by the Com